E 241 
T5 H2 

Copy 1 



THE CAPTURE 



OF 



TICONDEEOGA, 



IN 



1775 



A PAPER READ BEFORE THE 

AT MONTPELIEE, 

Tuesday, October 19th, 1869, 

By HILAND HALL. 



MONTPELIER : 

POLAJNDS' STEAM PRINTING ESTABLISHMENT, 

Journal Building, State Street. 

1869. 



OFFICERS 

OF THE 

VERMONT STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY, 

ELECTED OCTOBER 19, A. T>. 1869. 



President, 

GEORGE F. HOUGHTON, St. Albans. 

Vice Presidents, 

WILLIAM H. LORD, I). D., Montpelier, 
Gen. JOHN W. PHELPS, Brattleboro, 
Hox. GEORGE W. BENEDICT, Burlington. 

Recording Secretary, 

HENRY CLARK, Rutland. 

Corresponding Secretary, 

ALBERT D. HAGER, Proctors ville. 

Treasurer, 

HERMAN D. HOPKINS, Montpelier. 

Librarian, 

CHARLES REED, Montpelier. 



BOARD OF CURATORS, 

Hampden Cutts, Brattleboro, 

Charles Reed, Montpelier, 

George Grenville Benedict, Burlington, 

Philander D. Bradford, Northfield, 

Charles S. Smith, Montpelier, 

John R. Cleaveland, Brookfield, 

Orville S. Bliss, Georgia. 



All donations of Books, Pamphlets or Newspapers, should be addressed to 
Hon. Charles Reed, Librarian, Montpelier. 



THE CAPTURE 



OF 



TIOOKDEKOG-A, 



IN 



1775. 



A PAPER READ BEFORE THE 



Fstmwmt ^istawcat $tx$wty, r 



AT MONTPELIEK, 



Tuesday, October 19th, 1869, 



By HILAND HALL, 



MONTPELIER : 
POLANDS' STEAM PEINTING ESTABLISHMENT, 

Journal Building, State Street. 

1869. 



'Of 



ADDRESS OF GOV. HALL. 



Mr. President of the Vermont Historical Society, 

and Ladies and Gentlemen : 

Before I commence the paper which I have been requested to 
read this evening, a word of explanation seems necessary. 
Within the past dozen years a special enmity toward the early 
inhabitants and institutions of Vermont has been exhibited by 
a few historical writers in New York City ; perhaps inherited 
from their land-jobbing ancestors. Their hostile demonstrations 
have not been made by any attempted production of facts or argu- 
ments, but in dark insinuations against the patriotism or integrity 
of the founders of our State, and by calling them an abundance 
of hard names. Ethan Allen has come in for a large share of 
their hostility, though it has generally been without assuming any 
tangible form. But in December last, Mr. B. F. DeCosta, who I 
understand is a retired clergyman living in New York city, so far 
departed from the previous practice as to come forward with an 
elaborate article in the Qalaxy Magazine, in which he under- 
takes to show that John Brown, Esq., of Pittsfield, and the 
traitor, Arnold, were the real heroes in the capture of Ticonde- 
roga, and that what Ethan Allen did was of very little account. 

The magazine article was very thoroughly and effectually an- 
swered by Professor George W. Benedict, in the Burlington Free 
Press, and by the Hon. J. Hammond Trumbull, in the Connecti- 
cut Courant, and in newspaper articles by others in Boston and St. 



Albans. The paper which I am about to read was prepared soon 
after the publication of the Galaxy article, under the impression 
that it might be advisable, at some future time, to publish a refu- 
tation of it, in a more permanent form than in the daily or weekly 
newspaper, but without intending to read it before this Society. 
It is read now, in consequence of the unexpected failure of the 
person selected to deliver the annual address on this occasion. 



THE CAPTURE OF TICONDEROGA IN 1775. 

"Who took Ticonderoga ? is a question recently asked in the 
Galaxy Magazine, by Mr. B. F. DeCosta, of New York city, 
which question he at once proceeded to answer by giving an ac- 
count of the event quite different from that which has been com- 
monly received. 

The leading facts relating to the capture have hitherto been re- 
garded to be, that the expedition was secretly planned by some 
gentlemen in Connecticut, who furnished a few men with funds for 
expenses and supplies for the undertaking ; that these men set off 
for Bennington with the intention of engaging Col. Ethan Allen 
in the enterprise, and with the expectation of raising the force for 
the capture on the New Hampshire Grants ; that on their way, 
at Salisbury and in Berkshire county, their number was increased 
to some fifty or sixty ; that on the New Hampshire Grants they 
were joined by nearly two hundred Green Mountain Boys col- 
lected by Allen and his associates, Allen being elected to the 
command of the whole ; that after the men had been mustered 
at Castleton for the attack, Benedict Arnold, with a single attend- 
ant, arrived there, and claimed the command by virtue of written 
instructions from the Committee of Safety of Massachusetts, au- 
thorizing him " to enlist " four hundred men, and with them seize 
the fortress ; that Arnold, having no authority to command these 



men already raised, and to whom he was an entire stranger, his 
claim was denied, and Allen was confirmed in the supreme com- 
mand ; that Arnold was allowed to join the party as an assistant, 
and when the fort was surprised, was permitted to enter it by the 
side of Allen at his left ; and that Allen, being thus in command 
of the expedition, demanded the surrender of the fort from Capt. 
Delaplace, its commander, " in the name of the Great Jehovah 
and the Continental Congress." 

Such is a brief outline of the account of the capture given by 
Gordon in his contemporaneous history ; by Holmes in his Annals ; 
by Sparks in his Lives of Allen and Arnold ; by Hildreth in his 
History of the United States ; by Irving in his Life of Washington ; 
and by Bancroft, and numerous other historians. 

In contravention of this uniform current of history, the writer 
in the Galaxy Magazine, disregarding the most important features 
of this account, claims that John Brown, a lawyer of Pittsfield, 
Massachusetts, " was the person who first suggested the enter- 
prise " by which the fortress was taken ; that he had visited 
Canada by the request of Gen. Joseph "Warren and Samuel Ad- 
ams, " to secure the aid of the people to the cause of indepen- 
dence," and that in the month of March, 1775, he had written to 
Warren and Adams, " that the fort of Ticonderoga must be 
seized, as soon as possible, should hostilities be committed by 
the king's troops ;" that Samuel Adams, who was a delegate from 
Massachusetts to the Continental Congress, while on his way to 
Philadelphia, was at Hartford on the twenty-seventh of April, 1775, 
when he and " a number of gentlemen met with the governor of 
Connecticut and resolved on the capture of Ticonderoga," in 
furtherance of " Brown's recommendation ;" that the party sent 
on the expedition from Connecticut, " at once reported to Brown 
for the express purpose of advising with him about the whole 
matter." Therefore, the writer concludes that Col. John Brown 
is entitled to the credit of originating the plan for the capture, 



(5 

and especially that Ethan Allen had nothing whatever to do with it. 
In the actual capture of the fortress, the writer claims that Ar- 
nold held a joint and equal command with Allen, and is, in fact, 
entitled to the largest share of the honor. 

Mr. DeCosta, who professes to belong to a " new school of his- 
tory," commences his views of the capture of Ticonderoga with 
high claims to historical research and accuracy, as follows : 

" The study of American history" he says, "has noiv entered 
upon a new era. An intelligent patriotism no longer demands the 
unquestioned belief of every vainglorious tradition. Historical 
students have discovered that in order to enforce conviction they 
must produce authorities. " 

We are not disposed to controvert the rule which the writer 
thus lays down for historical research. Whether it belongs to an 
old or " a new era," it is peculiarly obligatory upon one, who 
like the Gtalaxy writer, propounds a new historical theory for the 
overthrow of a belief which has prevailed for nearly a century, 
and has hitherto been unquestioned. 

Now for the application of this rule to the article of Mr. De- 
Costa, that we may ascertain to what extent he " enforces convic- 
tion" of its truth "by the production of authorities." 

And first, in regard to his assumption that John Brown was the 
originator of the expedition by which Ticonderoga was taken. 
The first piece of evidence upon which the writer relies, is a let- 
ter written from Montreal by Brown to General Joseph Warren 
and Samuel Adams, in the month of March, 1775, from which he 
makes a quotation as follows : 

" One thing I must mention, to be kept a profound secret. The 
fort of Ticonderoga must be seized as soon as possible, should hos- 
tilities be committed by the king's troops. The people on the 
New Hampshire Grants have engaged to do the business, and, in 
my opinion, are the proper persons for the job." 



One would naturally suppose from the fact here stated by 
Brown, " that the people on the New Hampshire Cfrants had en- 
gaged to do the business ;" that he had been in consultation with 
the leaders of those people, persons who were accustomed to 
speak and act in their behalf and to enter into engagements for 
them. But this natural inference would interfere with the writer's 
theory that the project was wholly Brown's, by leaving it in doubt 
whether the capture was first suggested by him or by those with 
whom he had been in consultation on the New Hampshire Grants. 
It was, therefore, necessary for him to ignore any such inter- 
course with the leaders, which he does by asserting that " the 
only people he, [Brown] had anything to do with were a couple 
of old hunters who ferried him hurriedly down Lake Champlain." 
To be sure, this places Brown in the unenviable position of mak- 
ing a false representation to his employers, that the people on the 
Grants had made a certain important engagement with him, when 
he had not seen them and it was consequently impossible that they 
should have done any such thing. Hence we are compelled to 
infer, that in the ethics of the " new era," upon which " the 
study of American history has entered," a false representation is 
regarded as a very trifling matter. 

But let us inquire a little further into this mission of Mr. 
Brown into Canada, and his doings on the New Hampshire Grants. 
Early in the year 1775, an approaching struggle of the colonies 
with the mother country was clearly foreseen, and measures taken 
to prapare for it. On the 15th of February a resolution was 
passed by the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts, which, after 
reciting that it appeared to be the design of the British ministry 
to engage the Canadians and Indians in hostile measures against 
the colonies, directed the committee of correspondence of the 
town of Boston, " in such way and manner as they should think 
proper, to open and establish an intimate correspondence and con- 



8 



nection with the inhabitants of the Province of Quebec, and that 
they endeavor to put the same immediately into execution." 
That committee appointed Mr. Brown to repair to Canada for the 
purpose indicated by the resolution, furnishing him with letters 
and pamphlets for friends in Montreal. It appears by Mr. 
Brown's letter from that place to Messrs. "Warren and Adams be- 
fore referred to, which bears date March 29, 1775, that immedi- 
ately after receiving the letters and papers lie went to Albany to 
open a correspondence with a Dr. Joseph Young, and also to as- 
certain the state of the lakes, which he says he found " impassa- 
ble at that time." He accordingly returned to Pittsfield, and 
about a fortnight afterward, " set out for Canada." That he 
took the most direct and convenient route through Bennington 
across the New Hampshire Grants, there can be no manner of 
doubt. It appears by his letter that on his arrival in Canada, the 
engagement with him to capture Ticonderoga, before mentioned, 
had been entered into, and that he had also accomplished one of the 
most important objects of his mission, indicated in the Massachusetts 
resolution, by establishing, as his letter states, " a channel of cor- 
respondence through the Neiv Hampshire Crrants, which might be 
depended on" neither of which could have been done if he had 
taken any other route. He says in his letter " two men from the New 
Hampshire Grants accompanied me " to Canada. These compan- 
ions and guides were furnished him by the committee of the New 
Hampshire Grants at Bennington, as appears by authentic and 
undoubted evidence. One of them was no other than Peleg Sun- 
derland, one of the eight persons who had been condemned to 
death without trial by the infamous New York outlawry act of 
1774. In 1787, he petitioned the General Assembly of Vermont, 
stating that " in the month of March, 1775, he was called upon 
and requested by the Grand Committee at Bennington to go to 
Canada as a pilot to Major John Brown, who was sent by the Pro- 



9 

vincial Congress," etc.; that he was in that service twenty-one 
days, for which he had never received any compensation. The 
petition was referred to a committee who reported that " the peti- 
tioner did go to Canada by order of the authority, to pilot Major 
Brown as set up in his petition," and recommended that he be paid 
therefor from the State Treasury, the sum of eight pounds and 
fourteen shillings, being at the rate of one dollar per day, which 
payment was accordingly made. (See petition and report on file 
in the office of the Secretary of State at Montpelier, and Journals 
of Assembly, March 7, 1787 ; also Hall's Early History of Ver- 
mont, 198, 470. For Brown's letter to Warren and Adams, see 
Force's Archives, Vol. 2, 4th series, 243.) 

There would seem, then, to be no doubt that Mr. Brown did see 
other people on the New Hampshire Grants besides " the couple 
of old hunters, who ferried him hurriedly down Lake Cham- 
plain ;" that he did in fact confer with " the Grand Committee " 
of those people, and that there is, therefore, no reason to ques- 
tion the truth of Brown's statement, that " the people on the New 
Hampshire Grants" had engaged to capture Ticonderoga. It 
consequently follows that Mr. DeCosta's theory, which convicts 
Brown of misrepresentation and falsehood, falls to the ground. 

It is perhaps proper to notice here that Mr. DeCosta, after what 
he says about the two old hunters, adds the following: "With 
Allen, who lived far away from the lake, he (Brown) had no commu- 
nication as is shown by the declarations of Allen himself." We have 
no direct proof that Brown saw Allen on this occasion, though 
there is no reason to doubt that he did, for Allen's residence was at 
Bennington, and he was a member of the Grand Committee with 
whom Brown conferred. It is difficult to speak in words polite 
of the assertion of Mr. DeCosta, that " it is shown by the decla- 
rations of Allen himself '," that Brown did not see him. The wri- 
ter produces no authority for the statement, and can produce none. 



10 



It is either a random assertion made without thought or consider- 
ation, allowable only in his " new era of American history," or 
it is something worse. TJiere is not a word of truth in it. 

"Whether the suggestion in regard to the seizure of Ticonde- 
roga was first made by Allen, or by some other of the Green 
Mountain Boys with whom Brown was in conference, or by Brown 
himself, does not appear, nor is it material to know. The neces- 
sity of the seizure, in case of hostilities with the mother country, 
was too obvious to escape the attention of any intelligent person 
residing on the New Hampshire Grants, or indeed anywhere in 
New England. While the lake, which that fort commanded, had 
been in the possession of the French, the Northern frontier had 
been constantly exposed to their incursions, and had been repeat- 
edly ravaged by their Indian allies. That frontier, which had until 
then been Northern Massachusetts, was now, by the settlements on 
the New Hampshire Grants, on the very verge of the fortress. 
There could be no security whatever for the people on those Grants, 
if the fort was to remain in the possession of an enemy. The sug- 
gestion of its capture, the necessity for which could not but have 
been seen and felt by hundreds, could not add to the fame of 
either Allen or Brown. The speaking or writing of the propri- 
ety or necessity of the seizure of Ticonderoga, and the originat- 
ing of a plan which should result in its capture, are two very 
different things, which however, Mr. DeCosta does not seem to 
comprehend. Under the circumstances which actually existed, 
we have seen that the former would be a small matter. The lat- 
ter, on the contrary, would be quite an important one. If the 
expedition from Connecticut which eventuated in the seizure of 
the fortress, was started in consequence of Brown's letter to War- 
ren and Adams, and with the design that Brown as the originator 
of it, should aid in its execution, as is contended by Mr. DeCosta, 
then Brown is entitled to an honor which has not hitherto been 



11 

accorded to him, and which it is not known that he ever claimed. 

We will now proceed to inquire into the origin of the expedi- 
tion, which, it is agreed on all hands, was first put in motion at 
Hartford. Since the publication in 1860, by the Connecticut 
Historical Society, under the direction of J. Hammond Trumbull, 
its distinguished' President, of sundry original documents, princi- 
pally from the public archives of that State, there seems no room 
for doubt about its origin. The capture was concerted at Hart- 
ford on the 27th of April, 1775, between Col. Samuel H. Par- 
sons, Col. Samuel Wyllys and Silas Deane, who associated with 
them Christopher Leffingwell, Thomas Mumford and Adam Bab- 
cock. These six gentlemen on the following day, for the sake of 
secrecy and dispatch, without any consultation with the Assem- 
bly or other persons, obtained from the Colony Treasury on their 
personal obligations, three hundred pounds for the purposes of 
the undertaking. This was on Friday, the 28th of April, and on 
the same day Capt. Noah Phelps and Bernard Romans were dis- 
patched with the money to the northward to obtain men and sup- 
plies ; and the next clay they were followed by Capt. Edward 
Mott, Jeremiah Halsey, Epaphras Bull, William Nichols and two 
others, and were overtaken by them on Sunday evening at Salis- 
bury, some forty miles from Hartford. The receipts to the Treas- 
urer for the money bear date the 28th of April, and the evidence 
in proof of the time of the departure of the expedition is full and 
unquestionable. (Conn. Hist. Col., Vol. 1, 162-188.) 

According to Mr. DeCosta, Samuel Adams, one of the gen- 
tlemen to whom Mr. Brown's letter from Montreal had been ad- 
dressed, was in Hartford on the 21th of April on his way to Phila- 
delphia, with John Hancock and others, and on that day the plan 
for the capture of the fortress was arranged by him and other 
gentlemen with the governor and council of Connecticut. Now if 
Samuel Adams was not at Hartford on the 27th of April when the 



12 

expedition was planned, Mr. DeCosta's theory and superstructure 
fall to the ground. That he could not have been there on that 
day is beyond question. On the 24th of April, John Hancock 
wrote from Worcester to the Massachusetts committee of safety, 
among other things, as follows : " Mr. S. Adams and myself just 
arrived here, find no intelligence from you and no guard. * * 
****** u ow arG we to proceed ? Where are our 
brethren? ******* Where is Gushing? 
Are Mr. Paine and Mr. John Adams to be with us ? [They 
were the other three delegates to the Continental Congress.] * * 
Pray remember Mr. Adams and myself to all friends." (Force's 
Archives, 4th Series, Vol. 2, 384.) On the 26th, he wrote 
again : " I set out to-morrow morning." (Ibid, 401.) The dis- 
tance from Worcester to Hartford, seventy or eighty miles, was 
two good clays' travel in those days, and the delegates could not 
have reached there till the evening of the 28th or the morning of 
the 29th, after Phelps and Romans were well on their way to 
Salisbury. 

In support of his claim that Mr. Adams was at Hartford on 
the 27th of April, Mr. DeCosta relies upon two authorities, both 
of which flatly contradict his position. One of them is the life 
of Samuel Adams by Mr. Wells, who instead of stating that -Mr. 
Adams was at Hartford on that day, says he left Worcester on 
the 27th, and was at Hartford on the 29th. (Vol. 2, 207.) The 
other authority is an anonymous letter found in Force's American 
Archives, (Vol. 2, 507) from a gentleman in Pittsfield, dated 
May 4, 1775, which erroneously states that the expedition had 
been concerted the previous Saturday by Samuel Adams and Col. 
Hancock with the governor of Connecticut and others. But the 
previous Saturday was the 29th of April, and not the 27th, which, 
as we have seen, was the next day after the advance party of the 
expeditionists had left Hartford. It is, therefore, very clear that 



13 

Mr. Adams could not have had any hand in planning the expe- 
dition, and of consequence that Brown's letter to him and War- 
ren had nothing to do with it. It is proper to state in this con- 
nection that Mr. Bancroft in the first edition of his History of the 
United States followed the Pittsfield letter, in stating that the ex- 
pedition had been concerted by Adams and Hancock with the 
governor of Connecticut at Hartford, " On Saturday, the 29£A 
of April;" but in his later edition, issued since the publication 
of the Connecticut Historical Collections, before mentioned, he 
expunged that statement as unfounded, and ascribed the origin of 
the adventure to the private gentlemen we have[.before named. 
(Bancroft, Vol. 7, editions of 1858, and of 1864, p. 338.) It was 
reserved for Mr. DeCosta to discover that Saturday the 29th of 
April, was Thursday the 27th ; and there can be no doubt that he 
does belong to " a new school of history ;" one that in support of 
a favorite theory, not only wrests authorities from their obvious 
meaning, but relies upon those to sustain it which prove it to be 
false. 

Mr. DeCosta refers to another authority in relation to " Col. 
John Brown," with what object it is difficult to conceive, unless it 
was to convince his readers that it was utterly impossible for him 
to understand correctly, and properly apply, any peice of histori- 
cal evidence whatever. He says, " only three days after the de- 
cision of the people at Hartford, General Warren wrote to Alex- 
ander McDougal of New York, saying that it had been proposed 
to take Ticonderoga ;" and Mr. DeCosta asks, " By whom was 
this proposition made ?" And then in answer says, " the only 
person of whom we have any knowledge who had urged this upon 
Warren was Col. John Brown in his letter from Montreal the pre- 
vious March." This letter of Warren to McDougal bears date 
the 30th of April, and on the same page of Force's Archives, 
(Vol. 2, 450) where Mr. DeCosta finds it, and immediately pre- 



14 

ceding it, is a letter from Benedict Arnold to Warren of the 
same date, stating the condition of the fort at Ticonderoga, show- 
ing most conclusively that it was Arnold's and not Brown's propo- 
sition to which the letter to McDougal referred. How it was pos- 
sible for the writer of the Gralaxy article to overlook the connec- 
tion between these two letters of the same date, thus found to- 
gether on the same page, is a mystery, which can only be solved 
by Mr. DeCosta himself. 

Mr. DeCosta, seeking to confirm his theory that it was part of 
the programme of the expedition from Hartford, that Brown was 
to take a part in it, says, " the party from Connecticut moved at 
once to Col. John Brown, at Pittsfield, for the express purpose of 
advising with him about the whole matter." Again he says, " the 
party from Connecticut at once reported to Brown," and thus " ac- 
knowledged his agency." Now, there is no foundation whatever 
for this statement, and if the writer had paid but a moderate at- 
tention to the abundant authentic evidence bearing on the point, 
he certainly could not have hazarded any such assertion ; unless, 
indeed, the habit of misunderstanding and perverting the mean- 
ing of authorities, which we have seen he had fallen into, in 
his " new school of history," had become too inveterate to be 
overcome. 

From the papers published in the Connecticut Historical Col- 
lections, before mentioned, consisting of the journal of the expe- 
dition kept by Capt. Edward Mott, T and a contemporaneous account 
by Elisha Phelps, and also by the official report made to the Mas- 
sachusetts Congress by the committee having charge of the expe- 
dition, it fully appears that it was no part of the original design 
of the Connecticut party to call upon Brown at all ; that the men 
from Hartford were to stop at Salisbury, and after being joined 
there by a few others, were, in the language of Captain Mott, 
" to keep their business secret and ride through the country un- 



15 

armed until they came to the new settlements on the Grants," 
where they were to raise the men to make the capture. The 
party pursued that intention until they arrived at Pittsfield, 
where, stopping to tarry over night, they fell in with Col. James 
Easton and John Brown, Esq., and learning that the latter had 
lately been to Canada, concluded to inform them of their project 
and to take their advice. The result of their conference was, that 
it was resolved to raise a portion of the force for the expedition 
in Berkshire county, and both Easton and Brown agreed to take 
part in it. (See Conn. Collections, 167, 168, 173, 174, 175 ; 
Force's Archives, Vol. 2, 557-559, and Jour. Mass. Cong., 696.) 

The only authority which Mr. DeCosta cites in support of this 
part of his theory, is the before mentioned Pittsfield letter, the 
meaning of which he distorts and falsifies after his usual manner. 
He quotes it as stating the fact that " the Connecticut volunteers 
reported to Col. Brown" — whereas the letter states no such thing. 
It merely says that the Connecticut men at Pittsfield had " been 
joined by Col. Easton, Capt. Dickinson and Mr. Brown with forty 
soldiers." Here is no intimation that the volunteers, in pursu- 
ance of previous instructions, reported to Brown. Brown merely 
joined them. It might, at least with equal propriety be asserted 
that they reported to Col. Easton or Capt. Dickinson, their names 
being mentioned prior to that of Brown's. (Force's Archives, 
Vol. 2, 507.) 

Although Brown had no part in originating the Ticonderoga 
expedition, his services, after he joined it, were undoubtedly earn- 
est and valuable, and they were duly appreciated and acknowl- 
edged by his associates. There is no reason to suppose that lie 
ever, in his lifetime, claimed the peculiar honor which Mr. DeCosta 
seems determined to thrust upon him. It is evident, however, 
from Mr. DeCosta's whole article, that he was much less anxious 
to increase the fame of Brown, than to lessen that of Col. Allen. 



16 

After stating what he claims for Brown in originating the expedi- 
tion, when he comes to his statement that the Connecticut men re- 
ported to Brown, he says, " with all these transactions Ethan 
Allen had nothing whatever to do." Again, he says, " we are 
justified in declaring that Brown's recommendation was carried 
to Hartford and acted upon ;" and he adds, " certainly Ethan 
Allen was in no way concerned." And he winds up this branch 
of his tirade against Allen as follows : " In view of the testimony 
which has been brought to bear on the subject, it will be idle any 
longer to support the claim of Ethan Allen as the originator of 
the plan to capture Ticonderoga" 

If, under the inspiration of his "new historical school," it had 
been allowable for Mr. DeCosta to have paid some little attention 
to the actual history of the expedition about which he was under- 
taking to write, he would readily have discovered that there was 
no necessity whatever for manufacturing John Brown into a new 
hero of Ticonderoga, for the purpose of supplanting Allen ; and for 
the very plain reason that Allen had never made any pretensions 
to have done what the writer claims for Brown. Allen never 
claimed that he was the originator of the Ticonderoga expedition, 
but always admitted and declared that it was set on foot in Con- 
necticut. It is so stated in his letter from Ticonderoga to the Al- 
bany Committee, of May 11, and also in one from Crown Point, 
of June 2, 1775, to the New York Congress. (Force's Archives, 
Yol. 2, 606, 891. In his narrative of his captivity, he speaks of 
it as follows : " The bloody attempt at Lexington to enslave 
America, thoroughly electrified my mind, and fully determined me 
to take part with my country ; and while I was wishing for an 
opportunity to signalize myself in its behalf, directions were pri- 
vately sent me from the then Colony (now State) of Connecticut, 
to raise the Green Mountain Boys, and, if possible, with them to 
surprise the fortress, Ticonderoga. This enterprise I cheerfully 



17 

undertook," etc. So it turns out that Mr. DeCosta, in his eager- 
ness to tarnish the fair fame of Col. Allen, has thus far been 
combatting a phantom of his own creation, and has thus expended 
a vast amount of labor in falsifying history to no purpose what- 
ever. Leaving then, to the writer of this philippic against Allen, 
all the glory he lias acquired by inventing and discussing this false 
issue, we will proceed to inquire into the real facts of the enter- 
prise ; and in this inquiry we will not overlook any additional light 
which Mr. DeCosta has attempted to throw upon it. 

We have already seen from the statements of Captains Mott 
and Phelps, two of the principal persons who were sent from 
Hartford to superintend the expedition, that it was their original 
intention, and according to their instructions, to raise the men to 
carry it into execution on the New Hampshire Grants. Such be- 
ing their design, it was indispensable to secure the aid of Col. 
Ethan Allen, the then well known active and fearless leader of 
those people, who under the name of Green Mountain Boys, had 
for years successfully defended their farms against the efforts of 
the land-jobbing government of New York to dispossess them. 
Their bravery and local position, pointed them out to the Connecti- 
cut men, as well as to John Brown, as " the most proper persons 
for the job." 

From Hartford, therefore, the conductors of the enterprise, in- 
stead of reporting " at once to Col. Brown," as Mr. DeCosta has 
it, went straight to Salisbury, the old home of Ethan Allen, where 
his brothers Heman and Levi were living, who both joined the 
party. At Pittsfield, we have seen that the purpose of the lead- 
ers was so far changed, that it was determined to raise a portion 
of the necessary force in Berkshire county, and Col. Easton and 
others set about doing it. An account of the expedition published 
in the Hartford Courant, of May 22, 1775, twelve days after the 
capture, after stating that the Connecticut party had engaged 
2 



18 



Easton and Brown in the enterprise, says, " they likewise imme- 
diately [doubtless that night] dispatched an express to the in- 
trepid Col. Ethan Allen, of Bennington, desiring him to be ready 
to join them with a party of his valiant Green Mountain Boys." 
The Pittsfield letter, before referred to, after stating that the men 
of the expedition had left that place on Tuesday, adds, " a post 
having previously taken his departure to inform Col. Ethan Allen 
of the design, and desiring him to hold his Green Mountain Boys 
in readiness." But here we encounter an authority, produced by 
Mr. DeCosta, which he says has " recently been brought to public 
light from the Archives of Connecticut," and which he intro- 
duces with a great flourish, as if it were perfectly annihilating to 
the fame of Allen. It is the account of Bernard Romans with 
the Colony of Connecticut for monies expended in the capture of 
Ticonderoga. One item of the account is in the following words : 
" Paid Heman Allen going express after Ethan Allen, 120 miles, 
£ 2.16s." " Thus,' 1 '' adds Mr. DeCosta, "Allen himself had to be 
drummed up." Without stopping to take exception to the pecu- 
liar language of this assertion, we arc free to admit that the fact 
implied in it, is undoubtedly true. It was in the original pro- 
gramme of the expedition at Hartford, that Allen should be 
found — notified — hunted up, — or if you please, " drummed up," 
and induced to join it ; for if that was not done, the enterprise 
would be likely to fail. The fact that it was deemed essential to 
the success of the undertaking that Allen should be "drummed 
up" — which is confirmed, beyond question, by this account of Ro- 
mans — is highly creditable to the colonel ; and for its discovery, 
if it had been as hidden as Mr. DeCosta seems to suppose, we 
should be inclined to thank him quite heartily. The production 
of this authority in the Galaxy article, is another example of the 
proneness of "the new school of history" to rely upon evidence 
that disproves the positions it aims to establish. Whether Heman 
Allen was paid for his actual travel from his house in Salisbury, 



19 

or for his travel each way, or only one way, or precisely where 
he found his brother, is not stated. His mission, however, was 
successful ; for we learn from Captain Elisha Phelps that when the 
men from Pittsfield reached Bennington they " met Colonel Allen, 
who was much pleased with the intended expedition." (Conn. His. 
Col., 175.) He having been thus " drummed up," and his effi- 
cient services secured, the expedition proceeded to its successful 
issue. 

The great object of the writer of the Gralaxy article is to pro- 
duce some substitute for Ethan Allen as the hero of Ticonderoga ; 
and having now done all in his power for Col. Brown, he expends 
his subsequent efforts in favor of Benedict Arnold, who he 
claims was in joint and equal command with Allen, and is indeed 
entitled to the largest share of the honor of the capture. 

It should here be stated that on the 3d of May, the day on 
which the party from Connecticut reached Bennington, on their 
way to Ticonderoga, Benedict Arnold, who was at Cambridge, 
near Boston, was appointed by the Massachusetts Committee of 
Safety, " Colonel and commander-in-chief over a body of men not 
-exceeding four hundred," whom he was directed to enlist, and 
with them to proceed and reduce the fort at Ticonderoga. By the 
terms of his orders he was to enlist the men with whom he was 
to seize the fortress, and he was not authorized to command any 
other men. (See copy of his orders, Force's Archives, vol. 
2, 485.) He proceeded to the western part of Massachusetts, 
where he had scarcely begun his attempt to raise men, when he 
learned that a party from Connecticut was in advance of him in 
the enterprise. Stopping only to engage a few officers to enlist 
troops and follow him, he pushed on in pursuit with a single 
attendant, and reached Castleton, after the Green Mountain Boys 
had been rallied by Allen and his associates, and the whole force 
liad been mustered at that place for the attack. 

We have an official account of the expedition from its com- 



20 

mencement at Hartford, till its termination, addressed by Edward 
Mott, as chairman of the committee of war of the expedition, to the 
Provincial Congress of Massachusetts, dated the 11th day of May, 
1775, the next day after the capture, which is undoubtedly entitled 
to full credit. The following is the language of so much of it as 
relates to the part taken by Benedict Arnold : 

" On Sunday evening, the 7th of this instant, May, we arrived 
at Castleton, where, on the next day, was held a council of war 
by a committee chosen for that purpose, of which committee I had 
the honor to be chairman. After debating and consulting on differ- 
ent methods of procedure in order to accomplish our designs, it 
was concluded and voted that we would proceed in the following 
manner, viz.: That a party of thirty men, under the command of 
Capt. Herrick, should, on the next day in the afternoon, proceed to 
Skenesborough and take into custody Major Skene and his party, 
and take possession of all the boats that they should find there, 
and in the night proceed up the lake to Shoreham [where they 
were to meet] with the remainder of our men, which were about 
one hundred and forty, who were under the command of Col. 
Ethan Allen, and Col. James Eastern as his second, and Captain 
Warner, the third in command. As these three men were the 
persons who raised the men, they were chosen to the command, 
and to rank according to the number of men that each one 
raised. We also sent oft* Capt. Douglass, of Jericho, [Hancock,] 
to proceed directly to Panton, and there consult his brother-in-law, 
who lived there, and send down some boats to Shoreham, if possi- 
ble, to help our people over to the fort. All this it was concluded 
should be done or attempted, and was voted universally. 

" After this affair was all settled, and the men pitched on to go 
in each party, all were preparing for their march, being then with- 
in about nine miles of Skenesborough, and about twenty-five miles, 
on the way we went, from Ticonderoga, Colonel Arnold arrived to 
us from you with his orders. We were extremely rejoiced to see 



21 

that you fully agreed with us as to the expediency and importance 
of taking possession of the garrisons. But we were shockingly 
surprised when Col. Arnold presumed to contend for the command 
of those forces that we had raised, whom we had assured should 
go under the command of their own officers, and be paid and main- 
tained by the colony of Connecticut. But Mr. Arnold, after we 
had generously told him our whole plan, strenuously contended 
and insisted that he had a right to command them and all their 
officers ; which bred such a mutiny amongst the soldiers as almost 
frustrated our whole design. Our men were for clubbing their 
firelocks and marching home, but were prevented by Col. Allen 
and Col. Easton, who told them that he should not have the com- 
mand of them, and if he had, their pay would be the same as 
though they were under their command ; but they would damn 
the pay, and say they would not be commanded by any others but 
those they engaged with. 

" After the garrison was surrendered," continues the official 
account, " Mr. Arnold again assumed the command, although he 
had not one man there, and demanded it of Col. Allen, on which 
we gave Col. Allen his orders in writing, as follows, viz.: 

" ' To Col. Ethan" Allen, 

" ' Sir: — Whereas, agreeably to the power and authority to 
us given by the Colony of Connecticut, we have appointed you 
to take the command of a party of men, and reduce and take 
possession of the garrison at Ticonderoga and the dependencies 
thereto belonging ; and as you are now in actual possession of the 
same, your are hereby required to keep the command and posses- 
sion of the same, for the use of the American colonies, until you 
have further orders from the colony of Connecticut, or the Con- 
tinental Congress. 

" ' Signed per order of the Committee of War. 

" ' EDWARD MOTT, Chairman of said Committee: " 

Thus far in the words of the official document. The report then 
gives an account of the surprise of the fort, aud speaks favorably 



22 

of the services of Col. Easton, and recommends " John Brown, 
Esq., of Pittsfield, as an able counsellor, full of spirit and resolu- 
tion, as well as great good conduct." 

Accompanying this report of the committee of war to the Massa- 
chusetts Congress, was a certificate, signed by James Easton, 
Epaphras Bull, Edward Mott and Noah Phelps as " committee of 
war for the expedition against Ticondcroga and Crown Point," 
confirming the foregoing statement of Mott as their chairman. 
Capt. Mott, also, in his journal of the expedition, gives a similar 
account of Arnold's claim to the command, and of the decisive 
denial of his claim, both before and after the surrender of the fort. 
(Journal Mass. Cong., 696-699; Force's Archives, Vol. 2, 
556-560.) 

Gordon, in his history speaks as follows of the application of 
Arnold for the command : 

" A council of war was called ; his powers were examined ; 
and at length it was agreed, that he should be admitted to join 
and act with them, that so the public might be benefited. It 
was settled, however, that Col. Allen should have the supreme 
command, and Col. Arnold was to be his assistant ; with which 
the latter appeared satisfied, as he had no right by his commission 
either to command or interfere with the others." (Vol. 2, 11.) 

In the face of all this full and trustworthy contemporary evi- 
dence, Mr. DeCosta comes forward, at this late day, and says : 
" It is true that the command of the volunteers raised was at first 
given to Allen, but when Benedict Arnold arrived at Castleton, 
with authority from the Massachusetts committee, the command 
was divided, and it ivas definitely arranged that Arnold and Allen 
should exercise an equal authority, wliicli is a point that has not 
been generally understood.'''' Certainly, Mr. DeCosta is right in 
saying that " point has not been generally understood," and he 
might have said with equal force that it never would be. The 
statement itself is altogether improbable. A divided command 



23 

would be a novel experiment in military operations, quite too rash 
and dangerous, one would think, to be attempted. Indeed, the 
idea that a body of intelligent persons about to make a perilous 
attack upon a fortified post, should have deliberately consented 
and " definitely arranged " that two men should exercise an equal 
authority over them, the one be allowed to direct one thing, and 
the other with equal right to forbid it and direct another, seems 
too absurd to be credited of sane men. Certainly, no one can be 
expected to believe it but upon the production of the fullest proof 
from sources altogether beyond suspicion. There is no such proof. 

The only authorities to sustain this story of a divided command 
are the statements of Arnold himself, and an anonymous and 
suspicious newspaper article. These statements, as we shall see, 
are inconsistent with each other, and being contradicted by all 
other evidence, are not entitled to any credit whatever. 

Arnold had been ambitious of the honor of capturing the for- 
tress, and was sorely disappointed in finding that another expedi- 
tion was in advance of him. Possessed of unbounded assurance, 
he made claims of authority under his commission, which it in no 
sense warranted, and to which lie could have no equitable preten- 
sions, in the hope that his arrogant assumptions would induce tlie 
men already embodied to accept him as their commander. Foiled 
in this, the next day after the capture he wrote a long letter to 
the Massachusetts Committee of Safety, from whom he had received 
his commission, railing bitterly against Allen and his associates 
in the expedition, and claiming great merit for himself, with the 
hope, no doubt, of inducing the committee to favor his pretensions, 
and place him in the command of the post. Envious of the honor 
acquired by Allen, and anxious to share at least a portion of it, 
he falsely wrote to the committee that " on and before taking pos- 
session " of the fort he " had agreed with Col. Allen to issue 
future orders jointly," but that " Allen, finding he had the ascen- 
dency over his people," had violated the agreement, and refused 



24 

to allow him any command. He claimed that he " was the first 
person who entered and took possession of the fort," and says he 
" shall keep it at every hazard ;" and he states that the men at 
the fort " are in the greatest confusion and anarchy, destroying 
and plundering private property, and committing every enormity," 
<fcc, &c. (Force's Archives, Vol. 2, 567.) 

Arnold also in a letter to the Continental Congress, of the 29th 
of May, speaks of his having had a joint command in the cap- 
ture, not, as in his above mentioned letter, by the agreement of Col. 
Allen, but by that of the Connecticut committee. After stating 
his arrival in the neighborhood of Ticonderoga, with his instruc- 
tions from the Massachusetts committee, he says, " I met one Co- 
lonel Allen, with about one hundred men, raised at the instance of 
some gentlemen from Connecticut, ivho agreed we should have a 
joint command.'''' {Ibid. 734.) The newspaper article before 
alluded to, is a communication to HoWs JVew York Journal, signed 
"Veritas," and dated at Ticonderoga, June 25,1775. Its pro- 
fessed object was to correct an erroneous account of the capture 
of the fort, which had been published in the Oracle of Liberty at 
Worcester, and which ascribed an undue share of the honor to 
Col. Easton. {Ibid. 1085.) This gives still another version of 
the pretended agreement for a joint command. The words of the 
article are, " When Col. Arnold made known his commission, etc., 
it ivas voted by the officers present that he should take a joint com- 
mand with Col. Allen, (Col. Easton not presuming to take any 
command.)" We thus see that the alleged agreement was at first 
only with Allen, then, a few weeks later, it was with the gentle- 
men from Connecticut, and that it finally became amplified into a 
formal vote of all the officers who were present. The glaring 
discrepancy between these several accounts would alone be suffi- 
cient to cast grave distrust on the whole story, if not to stamp it 
with absolute falsehood. But what credit can be given to the 
story when it is found to be contradicted by every other known ac- 



25 

•count of the capture, and especially, as we have already seen, by 
that of the committee of war, having the general charge of the 
expedition, who, if any such agreement had been made with 
any one, must have known all about it. This committee was 
composed of intelligent and respectable men, whose veracity was 
never questioned ; and their testimony is of too high a character 
to be impeached or impaired by any statements of the traitor Ar- 
nold, or of an anonymous newspaper writer. 

The writer of the " Veritas " article, in addition to his state- 
ment about the joint command, says Arnold " was the first person 
who entered the fort, and Allen about five yards behind him." 
But this statement is contradicted by Allen in his letter to the 
Albany Committee, written the next day after the capture, by 
Gordon in his history, and by other accounts. Allen says, " Col. 
Arnold entered the fortress with me side by side." (Ibid. 606.) 
Gordon says, " they advanced along-side of each other, Colonel 
Allen on the right hand of Col. Arnold, and entered the port 
leading to the fort in the gray of the morning." (Vol. 2, p. 13.) 
" Veritas " also claims that Arnold is entitled to special merit for 
hurrying the men across the lake, and hastening the attack, with- 
out waiting for the whole force to be brought over ; which claim is 
unsupported by any other evidence, and should be taken to be of 
the same character with the writer's other statements that have 
been above disproved. 

Treating this article signed " Veritas " as an additional author- 
ity to that of Arnold, it can have but small tendency to weaken 
the effect of the evidence already adduced against it. But it is not 
entitled to the distinction of a separate and independent account. 
It is dated, as before stated, the 25th of June, 1775, at Ticondc- 
roga, where Arnold then was, and it was undoubtedly prepared 
under his supervision and dictation, if not actually penued by him. 
It purports to have been written "to do justice to modest merit " 
— the modest merit of Benedict Arnold ! — a man whose arro- 



26 



gance and effrontery were so uniformly offensive as to make his. 
whole life a continued quarrel for power and precedence. It is 
difficult to conceive that any one but Arnold himself could have 
had the shamelessness to talk of his modesty, or speak of his 
" modest merit /" This alone strongly indicates that he was its 
author. And the detailed account which the article gives of the 
numerous alleged sayings and acts of Arnold at different times and 
places, could only have come from Arnold himself. 

It thus appears that the story of Arnold's joint command, of his 
special services in the capture of the fortress, and of the miscon- 
duct of Allen's men after his taking possession, rest upon the 
authority of Arnold alone — the party who claims the benefit of 
his statements to enhance his own merit and disparage that of 
others. And what is the reputation for truth and veracity of this 
witness who thus testifies against all others, and in his own behalf? 
Bad, beyond question. From his youth up, though admitted to 
be brave even to rashness, he was always equally well noted for 
want of principle. Examples of his early falsehood, peculation 
and fraud might be given, but it is unnecessary. His want of 
integrity was known long before his patriotism was called in 
question. He was always as thorough a liar, as he was ever a 
traitor. 

That in his account of the transactions at Ticonderoga, Arnold 
did not, any more than on other occasions, hesitate at telling a 
direct falsehood to enhance his own fame or injure that of others, 
is most certain. There is one instance, at least, about which there 
can be no controversy. We have already seen that on the 8th of 
May, before Arnold arrived at Castleton, the whole plan for future 
proceedings had been agreed upon in council, and the men assigned 
their respective parts. A party of thirty men, under the com- 
mand of Captain Herrick, was to go to Skenesborough the next 
day in the afternoon, and take into custody Major Skene, and cap- 



27 

ture his boats. The party did go, and was entirely successful. 
Major Skene, together with Captain Delaplace and two subalterns, 
was sent off to Hartford on the 12th of May, in charge of Messrs. 
Hicock, Halsey and Nichols, with a letter from Col. Allen to Gov. 
Trumbull, of that date. In his letter Col. Allen says, "I make 
you a present of a major, a captain and two lieutenants in the 
regular establishment of George the Third. * * A party of 
men, under command of Captain Herrick, has took possession of 
Skenesborough, imprisoned Major Skene, and seized a schooner 
of his." In Major Skene's petition to the Assembly of Connecti- 
cut, he says he was seized by persons claiming to act under the 
authority of that colony, and that his seizure took place the 9th 
of May, which was the day before the capture of the fortress. 
(Conn. Rev. Papers, Yol. 1, Doc. 402, and Conn. Hist. Col. 178 
-180.) On the 11th of May, two days afterwards, some men who 
had been enlisted in Western Massachusetts, under Arnold's or- 
ders, reached Skenesborough on their way to Ticonderoga, ancl 
finding the already captured schooner there, took passage in her, 
and brought her to the fort, where she arrived on the 13th. (Force's 
Archives, Vol. 2, 686.) That these were the first of Arnold's men 
that joined him, is shown by his own letters of the 11th and 19th of 
May. (Ibid. 557, 645.) And yet, he had the hardihood and the 
meanness to seize upon this incident of the arrival of his men in 
the schooner, to endeavor to exalt himself with his distant employ- 
ers, by falsely representing to them that the original capture of 
Skene and his effects, had been made by them in pursuance of his 
previous orders. In a letter to the Massachusetts Committee of ' 
Safety, dated " Ticonderoga, May 14, 1775," he says, I, [that is 
Benedict Arnold,] " 1 ordered a parti/ to Skenesborough to take Major 
Skene, who have made him prisoner, and seized a small schooner, ., 
which is just arrived here." (Ibid. 584.) It would seem that this- 
example of Arnold's plain, downright lying, in so important' a.. 



28 



matter, ought to be sufficient to satisfy even a disciple of " the 
new school of history," that any statement of his about his part in 
the capture of Ticonderoga, or of the misconduct of others there, 
which is unsupported by other evidence, is not entitled to credit, or 
■even to serious attention. 

Coming as Arnold did, with authority from the Massachusetts 
Committee of Safety, to raise men for the seizure of the fort, which 
Allen and his associates were about to attack, they were disposed, 
though utterly denying his right to interfere in any way with their 
proceedings, to treat him with courtesy and respect. Hence he 
was allowed to take his place by the side of Allen, and to enter 
the fort with him at his left hand, but without any command what- 
ever. 

Arnold's claim to a joint command, and to have captured the 
fortress, and his threat " to keep it at every hazard," met 
with no countenance from the Massachusetts authorities. On the 
contrary, the congress of that colony, on the 17th of May, by 
resolution, stated the capture to have been made " by the intrepid 
valor of a number of men under the command of Col. Allen, Col. 
Easton and others," and it approved of the proceedings of the 
committee of the expedition in sustaining Allen in the command of 
the post. On the 22d of May the congress wrote Arnold, in answer 
to his before mentioned letter of the 11th, that as the expedition 
had been begun in Connecticut, they had requested that colony to 
■take the care and direction of the whole matter, and they enclosed 
Arnold a copy of the letter of request which they had addressed 
to the Connecticut Assembly. (Jour, of Provincial Congress, 
S35, 250, and Force's Archives, Vol. 2, 808, 676.) 

Early in June, a regiment one thousand strong, from Connecti- 
cut, under the command of Col. Benjamin Hinman, arrived at 
Ticonderoga, to whom Col. Allen at once gave up the command. 
But Arnold by this time had been joined by some recruits from 



29 

Western Massachusetts, and had enlisted some of the original' 
captors of the posts, whose terms of service had expired, — to the 
number in the whole of some one or two hundred. Notwithstand- 
ing the foregoing notice to him, that the conquered posts were 
to be under the charge of Connecticut, he disputed the authority 
of Col. Hinman, and insisted that the command belonged to him. 
On being informed of this conduct, the Massachusetts congress 
appointed a committee of three of their number to visit Ticonde- 
roga and Crown Point, with instructions to inquire into the con- 
dition of affairs, and to give such orders to Arnold as they should 
deem proper. The committee found him claiming, as they say, 
" all the posts and fortresses at the south ends of Lake Champlain 
and Lake George, although Col. Hinman was at Ticonderoga, with 
near a thousand men at the several posts." The committee gave 
Arnold a copy of their instructions, and informed him it was ex- 
pected he would give up the command to Col. Hinman, and be un- 
der him as an officer there, but he declined it, and declared " he 
would not be second to any man." Upon this, the committee di- 
rected him to turn over the men he had enlisted, which " he said 
was between two and three hundred," to Col. Hinman ; but instead 
of complying, he disbanded his men, and resigned his commission. 
He then vented his indignation against the authority that had com- 
missioned him, by fomenting a dangerous mutiny among his dis- 
banded men. His insubordinate and arrogant conduct on this oc- 
casion is a fair example of the " modest merit" so conspicuously 
claimed for him in the lying article signed " Veritas," before men- 
tioned ; which article very appropriately bears date at Ticonde- 
roga the day after his resignation and mutiny. (See the reports 
of the committee in the Journal of the Mass. Congress, 717-724, 
and Force's Archives, Vol. 2, 1407, 1539-40, 1592, 1596, 1598.) 
No mention is made of the claim of Arnold to a joint command 
in the capture of Ticonderoga in any contemporaneous account,. 



30 

.-except by Arnold himself, as before stated; and whoever would 
impugn the current histories of the event, must rely upon his state- 
ments alone, and discard the testimony of all others. All other 
such accounts concur in treating Col. Allen as the sole commander 
of the expedition, and of the assaulting party. Allen made such 
claim himself, in letters written the next day to the Albany com- 
mittee and to the Massachusetts Congress, and in all his corres- 
pondence, as well as in his narrative of his captivity before cited, 

. and his claim was uniformly admitted. (Force's Archives, Vol. 2, 
606 and 556.) 

The sending of the officers captured at Ticonderoga and 
Skenesborough to Hartford, with a letter from Col. Allen, has 
already been mentioned. The residue of the prisoners were 

.sent under the escort of Epaphras Bull, one of the Commit- 
tee of War before mentioned. The former party arrived at 
Hartford on the 18th of May, and the latter on the 20th. (Conn. 

'Coll., 178, 179.) The next issue of the Hartford Courant, 
of the 22d of May, contains what purports to be an " authentic 
account of the fortresses of Ticonderoga and Crown Point," 
.which states explicity that, " Col. Allen commanding the soldiery, 
on Wednesday morning they surprised and took possession of the 
fortress." This account, brought direct from Ticonderoga by the 
persons having charge of the prisoners, and who belonged to the 
original party sent from Hartford with the expedition, is entitled 
to the character and credit of an official account. 

But there was another witness of the capture, who certainly 
ought to have known who took Ticonderoga, and that is Capt. 
Delaplace, its British Commander, who surrendered it to the 
assaulting force ; and it seems proper to call him to the stand. On 
the 21th of May, the week after he was brought to Hartford, he 
addressed to the General Assembly of Connecticut a memorial, 

■•" in behalf of himself and the officers and soldiers under his com- 



ol 

anand," asking to be released from their imprisonment. This 
memorial is printed in full in " Hinman's Historical Collections of 
the part sustained by Connecticut in the revolution," published in 
1842, page 544. It reads as follows : 

" Your memorialists would represent that on the morning of the 
tenth of May, the garrison of the fortress of Ticoncleroga, in the 
Province of New York, was surprised by a party of armed men, 
under the command of one Ethan Allen, consisting of about one 
hundred and fifty, who had taken such measures as effectually to 
surprise the same, that very little resistance could be made, and 
to whom your memorialists were obliged to surrender as prisoners ; 
and overpowered by a superior force were disarmed, and by said 
Allen ordered immediately to be sent to Hartford." 

It would seem that this solemn asseveration of the British com- 
mander, in confirmation of the mass of other evidence already 
produced, ought to be accepted by Mr. DeCosta as a sufficient 
answer to the question with which he commences his article of 
" Who took Tlconderoga ? " and that even he should now be satis- 
fied that it was taken u by one .Ethan Allen" and that the preten- 
sions of the traitor Arnold to a share in the command were 
altogether unfounded. 

Mr. DeCosta has one remaining difficulty about the taking of 
Ticonderoga, which it is perhaps worth while to notice. He has 
great doubts whether Allen did really demand the surrender of the 
fortress " in the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental 
Congress," as all history and tradition have hitherto declared. 
The language of the demand is so perfectly characteristic of Allen 
as scarcely to need proof, of which however there is no lack. The 
principal trouble with Mr. DeCosta on this point is, that the Conti- 
nental Congress did not assemble until the very morning of the 
capture, and in fact, not until some hours after the surrender. If 
Mr. DeCosta had paid some slight attention to the history of the 
period, about which he was seeking to enlighten the public, he 



32 

might have ascertained that a general congress of the several 
colonies had assembled the previous Autumn, and had recommended 
the meeting of another at Philadelphia, on the 10th of the then 
following May ; that delegates had been appointed to it in all the 
colonies — in New York after great agitation and discussion ; that 
it was familiarly spoken of as the Continental Congress ; that its 
authority was everywhere acknowledged by the Whigs, and that 
the day of its assembling was well known in every household in 
the country. With the fact in Allen's mind that it was the day of 
the gathering of the Congress, nothing could be more natural than 
that he should proclaim its authority to the astonished officer of 
the King, whose tyranical measures it was the design of the Con- 
gress to resist. The committee of war, who were in charge of the 
expedition against the fortress, as well as Allen, bore in remem- 
brance the name and authority of that Congress. In the commis- 
sion of Mott, as chairman of the committee, to Allen, to keep the 
command of the fort, which has been before recited, and bears date 
the 10th day of May, (the very day of its surrender,) Allen is 
directed to hold the same until he " has further orders from the 
Colony of Connecticut or the Continental Congress." There is, 
therefore, no occasion for Mr. DeCosta's having any further trouble 
on that point. 

We have now gone through with an examination of all the argu- 
ments and authorities brought forward by the writer of the Cralaxy 
article, and find that this apostle of " the new school of history" 
has utterly failed to weaken or impair the long established histor- 
ical account, which with high pretensions and parade, he promised 
to overthrow and annihilate. Notwithstanding his extraordinary 
efforts, things continue as they were. Ethan Allen remains the 
undisturbed and undoubted hero of Ticonderoga. To him, and 
the fearless band of patriots under his command, belongs the honor 
of the capture, and of thus compelling the first surrender of the 
British flag to the coming American Republic. 



i TBRftRY OF CONGRESS 

■ill 



\ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



011800 188 6 fl 



